Fluoride air pollution can have a devastating effect on the total environment.

Angus Lazores is a Mohawk Indian. For centuries before the white-man reached Canada and the United States, the Mohawks hunted, fished, trapped, and farmed the islands of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, now known as the St. Regis Akwesasne Indian Reserve.

Angus Lazores, along with 1,500 other Mohawks, lives on Cornwall Island, a part of the reserve straddling the borders of Quebec, Ontario, and Upper New York State. The St. Regis Mohawk Band settled Cornwall Island just over a hundred years ago; they soon became known as an efficient and self-sufficient agricultural community. In 1959, there were 45 farmers, forty cattle barns and 364 dairy cattle on the Island.

Twenty years later, only eight farmers and eight cattle barns were left.

During the twenty years the cattle population was decimated;

all the bees on the Island had disappeared; crop yields had fallen;

partridges, after which the Akwesasne Reserve is named, had declined drastically; and the white pine trees on the Island were dying.

In 1959, Reynolds Metals Company had built an aluminium smelter on the south bank of the St. Lawrence River near Massena, New York State. Cornwall Island is downwind of the smelter at least 60 per cent of the time.

Angus Lazores dates his problems on the Island to 1962, just three years after the smelter became operational.

In that year, cattle became lame and developed swellings on their legs, eventually the lameness became so severe that the animals could no longer graze normally. They laid down to eat on pasture and then crawled to the next place to eat. With increasing age the cows had difficulty drinking cold water, and chewing was obviously painful. The animals would grab hay but let it go after unsuccessful attempts at mastication.

The first pregnancy and calving were usually uneventful, but the cows had small udders and too little milk for the calf. At the third pregnancy and delivery, the native cows had usually deteriorated, being unable to drink or chew properly. Cows died during delivery and neonatal calf mortality was high. If cows survived the third pregnancy they were sold for slaughter.

By 1971, the majority of farmers had switched from dairy to beef cattle and by November 1977, there were only 177 cattle on the Island compared with 364 in 1959.

The cause of the cattle disease was admitted only after many years. In 1969, officials of the Canadian Ministry of the Environment had expressed concern to Reynolds Metals about fluoride emissions impacting on the Island. Four years later, the St. Regis Local Council authorised an investigation into pollutants emitted by the smelter. In July 1973, the Council were advised that damage to the pine trees on the Island was due to fluoride gases.

In November 1975, Angus Lazore’s cattle were examined by a veterinarian called Abbey, sent by Reynolds Metals. He claimed that internal and external parasites were responsible for the condition of the cattle – fluoride wasn’t even mentioned.

The Mohawk elders were disturbed by Abbey’s diagnosis and approached Professor Lennart Krook, an eminent veterinary scientist at Cornell University.

Krook ran extensive diagnostic and pathological tests on the St. Regis cattle, then announced his findings:

“Owing to extensive and serious chronic fluoride poisoning no cattle born on Cornwall Island were going to live for more than five years.”

During 1977 and 1978, the situation which had developed on the Island was investigated by a team of scientists from the New York State College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University. Leaders of the team were Professor Krook and Dr George Maylin. In the introduction to their published report, they point out:

“Of all pollutants that affect farm animals, fluorine has caused the most severe and widespread damage. The object of the present study is to record yet another man-made fluorine pollution disaster and to interpret the pathogenesis of the osseous changes in view of recent advances in the understanding of bone metabolism.”

While Krook and Maylin focused on the cattle, Dr Clancy Gordon of the University of Montana, examined 2,600 plant samples from Cornwall Island and found very high levels of fluoride in all the vegetation tested.

University of Illinois scientists were then recruited to see if the Islanders themselves were suffering health problems resulting from excessive exposure to fluoride. Doctors Bertram Carnow and Shirley Conibear reported:

“Significant numbers of people with abnormalities of the muscular, skeletal, nervous and blood systems.”

In addition, Cornwall Island physicians had noted high rates of anaemia, rashes, irritability, diabetes, high blood pressure and thyroid disease.

Carnow and Conibear concluded that there had been;

“Unquestionably heavy exposure to fluorine compounds that has affected all the life studied.”

They recommended an immediate reduction in smelter fluoride emissions. Chief Francis of the Mohawk Indian Band put it more dramatically, he advised anyone living in areas where smelters might be built, to:

“Block the project. Block them with everything you have. If you fail then move. Move as quickly as you can because there’s no money that can buy your health back.”

Reynolds Metals spent its first ten years of operation spewing over 130 kilos of fluoride emissions an hour, directly downstream to Cornwall Island. Even after New York State regulations forced the company to reduce its emissions to 30 kilos an hour by 1975, Reynolds’ “gift” to the Mohawks had been an appalling -

TWELVE MILLION KILOS OF AIRBORNE FLUORIDE CONTAMINANTS

OVER TWENTY YEARS.

The Mohawk way of life became a victim of a preventable man-made plague. And you don’t have to go to Canada to find fluoride pollution problems. For more than a century, the Hunter Valley Region of New South Wales has produced some of Australia’s finest wines.

On Tuesday July 8 1980, the Tyrrell’s and the Tulloch’s, Reg Drayton and Dr Max Lake together with Chris Barnes, who, as President of the Hunter Valley Vineyard Association represented virtually all the other wine-makers, held a press conference at the Hilton Hotel, Sydney.

Their message was simple – they could foresee the day when the Hunter Valley was finished as a wine-growing area. And the reason? For the past ten years the ALCAN aluminium smelter at Kurri-Kurri had rained 600 to 700 tonnes of fluoride pollutants onto the surrounding landscape annually. The wine-makers said they had known nothing about these fluoride emissions until 10 months previously, yet fluoride pollutants have, in the past, reduced grape yield and decimated vineyards in Spain, Greece, Bulgaria and the Rhone Valley.

Ever since the beginning of the industrial revolution but particularly in the second half of this century, wholesale pollution of air and of the countryside with fluoride fumes and fall-out has taken place; and the most common and most dangerous fluoride air pollutant is HYDROGEN FLUORIDE.

As mentioned previously, Dr Jag Cook, from Britain’s National Chemical Emergency Group – which is responsible for mopping up any major toxic spills in the UK – has said: “Hydrogen fluoride is about the only chemical that really scares me.”

Hardly surprising since amongst other things, hydrogen fluoride (HF) eats up glass and dissolves most metals.

Alright, you say, its dangerous, but I don’t live near a factory that releases HF into the atmosphere, nor do I work in an environment where HF is present. But consider this. Demand for lead-free petrol is growing quickly and the processes for making it involve the use of HF to achieve high octane ratings without using lead. In fact, between 1.26 and 3.14 kilos of HF are used in the production of every six barrels of alkylate.

As a result HF is present in the exhaust gases from vehicles using lead-free petrol. The levels of HF, three inches from the exhaust outlet measure 30 parts per billion, and remember at that concentration, HF can impair reflex activity in rats by acting as a CNS depressant – in other words, a mind-dulling drug.

HYDROGEN FLUORIDE, aka:, is used by an increasing number of industries, and it is also produced as a pollutant by an increasing number of industries.

A series of accidents in the United States have recently demonstrated that industrial HF sites are a major threat to public safety.

For instance, an HF leak on 30 October 1987 at the Marathon refinery in Texas City left 700 people in need of urgent medical treatment. Dr Fred Millar, of the Environmental Policy Institute, said that only luck had prevented the accident from becoming the major industrial catastrophe of the year. He pointed out:

“The release was from the vapour space of a storage tank. If the same release had been of HF liquid thousands would likely have died in the ensuing gas cloud. It would have been our Bhopal.”

A few months later, another HF leak occurred at Mobil’s refinery in Torrance, California. This caused a raging 41-hour fire and millions of dollars worth of damage. An official report of the accident suggested:

“The consequences may have been so great as to warrant regulations to direct industry to phase out its use or substitute processes with less environmental hazards.”

In March 1988, there was another HF leak, this time in Tulsa, Oklahoma. There, an accident at the Sun refinery produced a three-mile-long cloud which engulfed the town. Only a prompt evacuation limited the casualties to 36 persons (none fatal).

A recent test by the US Government showed that relatively small amounts of HF liquid will release a dense, ground-hugging gas cloud which remains lethal for five kilometres.

In Britain, the location of HF manufacturing plants are, according to the Health and Safety Executive, officially secret – to prevent them becoming targets for terrorists.

Many people, particularly those working in the pot-rooms of aluminium smelters, are exposed to relatively high concentrations of hydrogen fluoride. What can it do to them? Well, lets see.

In the spring of 1986, one of the most modern aluminium smelters in the world went into production in Portland, Victoria. The smelter had been built by the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA), who also owned a much older smelter at Point Henry, Geelong.

Two years later, on the 2nd December 1988, the Melbourne Age reported:

“SMELTER WORKERS CLAIM FOR ASTHMA.” “Twelve workers from the 35 per cent State-owned Portland aluminium smelter have issued common-law claims against the joint-venture seeking damages for occupational asthma. The chairman of the Aluminium Development Council, Mr. Bruce Heister, said the incidence of occupational asthma varied from smelter to smelter but the reasons for this were not clear. Damages for a case of occupational asthma were claimed against another big aluminium producer, Comalco, at its Queensland smelter a few months ago. The cause of pot room asthma is suspected to be an agent, or agents, in emissions from smelter pot lines. Since production started in Portland in October 1986, 65 workers have been diagnosed as having occupational asthma.”

In other words, after just 25 months in operation, 65 workers at one of the most modern aluminium smelters in the world had been affected by mysterious agents in the pot room.

Worse was to follow. On 27 April 1989, the Melbourne Herald reported:

“ALUMINIUM IS LATEST WORKER HEALTH SCARE.”

“A senior Victorian union official claims workers at Geelong’s ALCOA smelter are suffering respiratory ailments potentially as deadly as those found in the asbestos industry. Mr. Royre Bird, slate secretary of the Federated Iron-workers Association, has called for a national inquiry into respiratory disease in aluminium smelter workers after a report by New South Wales researchers found evidence of long-term irreversible lung damage. The report, by a team from Newcastle University medical school, found workers at Alcan Aluminium’s Kurri-Kurri smelter suffered reduced lung function equivalent to smoking a packet of cigarettes a day. Mr. Bird, who has worked in the industry for 18 years, claimed the findings had serious implications for the aluminium industry world-wide and for workers at Geelong. He said he believed that apart from respiratory diseases, aluminium workers were at risk of contracting cancer. He claimed to have observed a “slow but gradually developing history of cancers” at the Point Henry Plant in Geelong.

He also claimed workers at the Portland smelter, partly owned by the State Government, were suffering higher rates of pot room asthma than at Point Henry. Union solicitors had confirmed 176 cases of pot room asthma at Point Henry since 1964, compared with 76 at Portland. At least 20 more cases were being processed by other solicitors, he said.”

A few days later, a cancer specialist supported Mr Bird’s claim when the Melbourne Sun published the following article on May 1 1989:

“CANCER RISK AT SMELTERS: DOCTOR”. ”Workers at aluminium smelters are at risk of developing cancer as well as chronic asthma, according to a leading cancer specialist. At least 39 smelter workers across Australia are believed to have already died from work-related cancer. Dr Cyril Minty, a specialist at the Peter McCallum cancer hospital, said fumes emitted from the smelters’ pot rooms could contain cancer-causing chemicals as well as irritants that produced the respiratory condition known as ‘pot room asthma’ Dr Minty said more than six sufferers of industrial asthma from Portland and ALCOA’s Geelong smelter had been referred to him during the past year.”

Now, there is no mystery at all. The major pollutants in the pot room are gaseous and particulate fluorides; and HYDROGEN FLUORIDE is the most common fluoride gas.

HYDROGEN FLUORIDE IS THE MAJOR CAUSE OF

POT ROOM ASTHMA AND A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR

IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF LUNG CANCER IN

SOME ALUMINIUM WORKERS.

But, industrialists live in fear of conclusive evidence linking a pollutant to ‘new’ occupational or Neighbourhood diseases. The reason is obvious. Employers and their insurers will face claims for compensation.

(Note: a “Neighbourhood disease” is one affecting people living in the vicinity of a pollutant producing factory.)

Industries with major fluoride pollution problems are amongst the most powerful interest groups in society. Fluoride emissions are amongst the most difficult of all pollutants to control effectively, and in a highly competitive economic system, many companies will fight for their very lives to avoid spending large amounts of money to control pollution since this will, almost inevitably, increase the price of the end-product.

Certain sections of industry will go to great lengths to suppress stories about fluoride pollution. Such reports might encourage people to sue for damages or, result in pressures for tougher anti-pollution laws.

The first symptoms of exposure to trace amounts of hydrogen fluoride are NOT physiological but psychological, and include such symptoms as confusion, fatigue, partial loss of memory and mental dullness. To put it another way, behaviour is exquisitely sensitive to minute traces of hydrogen fluoride (and other pollutants) in the environment.

Unfortunately, the tests to which chemical substances are usually subjected in efforts to determine their so-called “maximum permissible doses or concentration” do not take into account possible changes in mental function, and also would often fail to pick up long-term or chronic effects on the organism.

Minute concentrations of hydrogen fluoride inhaled over lengthy periods of time CAN DAMAGE VITAL COMPONENTS OF THE IMMUNE SYSTEM – this leaves the individual vulnerable to opportunistic diseases.

Last century, canaries were taken down coal mines because of the presence of trace amounts of deadly gases in the mines. The gases were undetectable by smell but if the canary died, the miners got out – quickly!

Some scientists suspect that FROGS have become analogous to the coal-mine canaries. All over the world frogs are disappearing and no-one knows why. The best guess so far is that pollution of the environment is responsible. I’d like to tell you about an experiment I recently completed.

In the adult human the immune system weighs about two pounds and consists of around a trillion lymphocytes and about 100 million trillion molecules called antibodies that are produced and secreted by the lymphocytes.

In a mouse, the immune system consists of about 300 million lymphocytes and around a trillion antibodies.

The smallest known immune system, that of a tadpole, is estimated to have a million lymphocytes and an antibody repertoire of about 10 million. Smaller immune systems do not exist presumably because such systems would recognize antigen so infrequently that they would provide little, if any, protective advantage.

I exposed tadpoles to a number of increasingly common environmental pollutants, including mercury, cadmium and hydrofluoric acid – which is hydrogen fluoride in water, and both gas and acid have the same formula, HF.

Incredibly low concentrations of these chemicals proved lethal to the tadpoles.

But technically speaking, the tadpoles didn’t die of “mercury poisoning” or “cadmium poisoning,” or “hydrofluoric acid” poisoning. They died because the chemicals ‘wrecked’ their immune systems leaving the tadpoles vulnerable to all the germs and parasites in their environment.

The significance of this is that scientists still evaluate the toxicity of a chemical by determining what amount of the chemical causes obvious damage or death.

For instance, lets look at a common chemical – sodium fluoride.

It would take at least 3 grams of sodium fluoride to kill a healthy adult. That’s the amount in 3,000 litres of fluoridated water.

If you ingested about 8 milligrams of sodium fluoride daily for ten years or more, you would develop a well-defined disease called skeletal fluorosis, which affects bones, tendons and secondarily, the nervous system. If an infant ingested 2 milligrams of fluoride daily, they would develop dental fluorosis or ‘mottled’ teeth.

Apparently therefore, the only problems that low doses of sodium fluoride can cause are either dental fluorosis or skeletal fluorosis. The CLINICAL symptoms of these conditions are easily detected – ‘mottled’ teeth and ‘bony outgrowths’ and the calcification of tendons in skeletal fluorosis.

BUT WHAT ABOUT SUB-CLINICAL SYMPTOMS

THOSE THAT WE CAN’T SEE?

Experiments have shown water containing 1 to 4 parts per million can have an effect on the Central Nervous System – a mind-dulling effect! Experiments have also demonstrated that fluoride at a concentration of just 0.6 parts per million can disturb antibody production, and thus interfere with the functioning of the immune system.

And many experiments have shown that concentrations of fluoride of about 4 parts per million can damage DNA – the vital core of every living cell.

In other words, at very low concentrations, fluoride can cause subtle changes in enzyme activities, nerve action potentials, altered behavioural reaction, and the immune system…

There was a positive correlation between pineal F and pineal Ca (r = 0.73, p<0.02)

but no correlation between pineal F and bone F.

and its F/Ca ratio is higher than bone.

” … Having said all of this, the absence of evidence of measurable impact is no excuse for not promulgating the best and most appropriate environmental standards.

For far too long we have provided industry with de facto subsidies by not enforcing the best and most appropriate environmental regulations. In not doing so we provide industries with special arrangements to pollute an economic advantage.

Aside of the human health or environmental responsibilities, this is simply not equitable or reasonable…”Professor Mark P. Taylor, Environmental Science, Department of Environment and Geography, Faculty of Science,Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

See also:

However, F. Gases are highly potent greenhouse gases and therefore have become an important element of the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP), which since 2001 has been the EU’s main forum for discussing and developing policies to combat
climate change and meet Kyoto demands.

Corporate Europe Observatory, October 2005

↓ WORST LOBBY AWARD ↓

WHEN BEFORE HAVE REFRIGERANTS BEEN A HOT ITEM ?

An important EU initiative which seeks to regulate the use of some highly potent green house gases has been under attack from its inception by F-gas industry lobbying, who seek to weaken its impact on their business activities. The Brussels front for this lobby, which consists of mainly US based multinationals, is the ‘European Partnership for Energy and the Environment’ (EPEE). It is now working hard to influence the European Parliament so that current Parliament proposals do not undermine industry’s initial lobbying success by introducing tougher regulation after all. Internal EPEE documents reveal the exact details of the lobbying strategy laid out by Hill & Knowlton.

The EU is one of the main contributors to global climate change. In order to meet even its own Kyoto commitments[1], generally considered not nearly enough, EU countries have to take serious action. High on the to-do list is reducing the emissions of the ‘F-gases’. These industrial fluorinated gases (hydro fluorocarbons or HFCs, perfluorocarbons or PFCs and sulphur hexafluoride or SF6), have extremely high Global Warming Potentials (GWP).[2] With their growing production, F-gases will count for a increasing share of global greenhouse emissions. Unique among pollutants that cause climate change, is that F-gases are not a by-product, but deliberately produced and promoted substances.[3]

USE OF FLUORIDE-GASES

F-gases are used in many appliances such as refrigerators, air conditioning, foam blowers and car tyres. They replaced ozone-depleting gases such as chlorofluorocarbon (CFCs), which are being phased out globally as part of the 1990 Montreal Protocol. F-gases are therefore often portrayed by their manufacturers as ‘environmentally friendly’. However, they are highly potent greenhouse gases and therefore have become an important element of the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP), which since 2001 has been the EU’s main forum for discussing and developing policies to combat climate change and meet Kyoto demands.[4]

In most appliances, natural alternatives with negligible GWP compared to F-gases are either already available and widely used, or are in development.[5] For example, Greenpeace and German company DKK Scharfenstein introduced ‘Greenfreeze’ hydrocarbon refrigerators into the European market in the 1990s.[6] Now, fridges made by major European [and Japanese] companies such as Siemens and Bosch are nearly all F-gas free. Big food corporations are switching to F-gas free commercial refrigeration.[7]

Despite this and to the disappointment of many, in 2003 the European Commission’s initial proposal[8] for regulating F-gases focused on containment rather than out-right bans. This meant a focus on how the substance is handled, preventing leakage, instead of limiting the use of it. Furthermore, internal market law was chosen as the legal base for the proposal instead of EU environmental law.[9] This effectively prevents individual Member States from imposing their own bans or introducing stricter rules. This is significant because countries such as Denmark and Austria, have been pursuing national F-gas bans and are supporting the switch to alternatives.

After two and a half years of discussions, the F-gas Regulation is nearly finalised. At the end of October 2005, a crucial European Parliament vote may bring fundamental improvements to the current proposal.

F-GAS LOBBY:

WHO IS THE EUROPEAN PARTNERSHIP FOR ENERBY AND THE ENVIRONMENT?

While the makers of products using F-gases in many cases have the option to switch to alternatives, Fgas producers have a great interest in sustaining their use. DuPont’s Annual Review in 2004 states that: “With global patent rights for three critical HFC refrigerant blends, DuPont is poised to benefit from implementation of the Montreal Protocol [...]”. DuPont is expanding its F-gas activities in China, a fast-growing air conditioning and refrigeration market.[10] Honeywell and Arkema (part of oil giant Total) are doing the same. Clearly, patent portfolio’s and investment strategies are at the core of the industry’s current offensive and their battle against any F-gas phase outs. In 2002, new F-gas factories were proposed or under construction in European countries like the UK, France and Spain.[11]

The failure of the US government to take meaningful action against global warming is well known. US producers of alternative refrigerants such as hydrocarbons, argue that the absence of US action against F-gases is due to political pressure of pro-F-gas groups “that are closely linked to DuPont”.[12] As a non-signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, the US government and US industries often characterise European initiatives that seek to take action against global warming as barriers to trade “under the guise of environmental protection”.[13] However, it became apparent that in the EU, F-gases were going to be subject to some kind of regulation. So the F-gas industry devised a more European and ‘green’ façade, in order to take action to keep any impending regime as weak as possible. To this end, in 2000, the ‘European Partnership for Energy and the Environment’ (EPEE) was founded.

The EPEE presents itself as the ‘voice of the European refrigeration and air-conditioning sector’.

However, the 23 members on the ‘European’ member list are mostly American or Japanese multinationals with plants in Europe (DuPont, Honeywell, Lennox, Baltimore Aircoil, Copeland, Carrier, Daikin, Hitachi, Mitsubishi and others). The absence of most European refrigerator manufacturers, including Siemens, Bosch, Miele, Delonghi, AEG and Liebherr,[14] is highly significant, as they have all largely switched to alternatives to F-gases.

LOBBY ON F-GAS

The most vocal lobby on the F-gas regulation has undoubtedly come from the F-gas producers themselves, either through EPEE or the European Fluorocarbon Technical Committee (EFCTC)[15], part of the chemical industry lobby organisation CEFIC. All five members of EFCTC are also members of EPEE. Other industry sectors lobbying on the F-gas regulation represent the variety of uses of F-gases: [The] producers of foam, cars, fire fighting equipment and food companies. All are worried about the costs of transition to alternatives. Large food companies like McDonald’s got involved in hope of subsidies for their switch to F-gas free refrigerators. The CIAA (food and drink industry federation) recently got involved to oppose bans that would affect other companies that have not yet switched.

Opposing the pro-F-gas lobby, green NGOs like Greenpeace and Climate Action Network Europe, along with producers of alternative refrigerants, have fought for the EU to adopt a much more far reaching approach to reduce F-gas emissions.

There are significant gaps in the membership list which is available on the EPEE website[16], such as EPEE founding member: the US Airconditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI).[17] The ARI is closely related to the ‘Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy’ (ARAP). Both are based in Arlington, Virginia, near Washington.[18] The EPEE and ARAP are closely linked, with largely overlapping memberships. The only two companies listed as “US” members of the EPEE (Rheem Manufacturing and Lennox International), are very involved in both lobby groups. Dave Lewis of Lennox International is chairman of ARAP. All the other US companies are listed with their European offices. The names of the two organisations include typical terms such as ‘Alliance’ and ‘Partnership’, ‘Responsible’ and ‘Environment’, and reflect a decade-long tradition of industry front groups working against progressive social and environmental legislation.[19] For many years, US and EU multinationals had the ‘Trans Atlantic Business Dialogue’ (TABD) at their disposal for co-coordinated transatlantic lobbying.[20] The TABD was founded in 1995 as an initiative of the European Commission and the US government. This controversial body grants these companies privileged access to high level policy makers. When refrigerants became an issue, a ‘Refrigerants Group’ was set up within the TABD, on the US side, headed by the Air conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI).

Following a 1994 EU proposal to unilaterally ban certain ozone depleting HCFCs[21], the European Commission was criticised by the TABD Refrigerants Group and accused of being “unresponsive to industry input and facts”.[22] A few years later, the TABD focus shifted to the F-gases. Responding to a Danish government plan to ban certain F-gases by 2006[23], industry took action directly to the European Commission. Reporting on the Cincinatti TABD summit in December 2000, the ARI newsletter states that: “The Refrigerants Group briefed Peter Horrocks, the EU’s Environment Head of Sector, and Gerhard Lohan, the EU’s Enterprise Head of Unit, for nearly two hours on the merits of long-term HFC use”.[24] Refrigerants remained a major issue at later TABD meetings.

As demonstrated later, the privileged access that the TABD offered to the F-gas industry influenced key concepts in the first Commission F-gas proposal. The TABD also played an important role in paving the way for a European twin organisation to ARAP to establish itself as a ‘credible stakeholder’. From its inception, the EPEE has served as a platform from which the European decision makers, media and public are supplied with the ‘green’ F-gas message.

CLOUDY ROLE OF PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRMS

In Brussels, public relations (PR) firms play a key, but opaque role in assisting corporate lobbying. The EPEE is an example of this. The EPEE website does not reveal that the group’s Brussels operations are by and large run by public affairs giant Hill & Knowlton, located on 118 Avenue de Cortenbergh, one of Brussels’ lobbying hotspots.[25] The EPEE has the maximum permitted number of four (previously six) lobbyists accredited with fulltime access passes to the European Parliament on its behalf.[26] All but one are Hill & Knowlton employees, registered as ‘EPEE’.

Hill & Knowlton consultants designed EPEE’s lobbying strategy, do the organisational work, and conduct most of the lobbying of EU officials and parliamentarians. While the content and approach of ARAP’s arguments have evidently been copied to EPEE, the EPEE website is more stylish and has a distinctively more ‘green’ flavour to it. Hill & Knowlton claim that thanks to its work, “EPEE has become a legitimate and credible stakeholder in the refrigeration policy debate”.[27] In a very similar manner, the ARAP is established and run by PR firm Alcalde & Fay in Washington.[28]

GREENWASHING F-GASES

The EPEE lobbying strategy is clearly focused on greening the image of F-gases. To the United Nations, the EPEE claims a commitment to “contribute to the development of effective European policies to reduce greenhouse gases from the use of refrigerants”.[29] Meanwhile to industry, ARI president William Sutton talks about how: “[...] the EPEE [...] is fighting against the possible phase-out of HFC refrigerants in Europe”.[30]

ARAP/EPEE claim that the environmental benefits of F-gases are (1) they replace ozone depleting CFCs, (2) their potential energy efficiency compared to alternatives in some appliances, generating less CO2 emissions. It is argued that (3) with maximum containment, leakage into the atmosphere can be prevented. Diverse arguments are used to discredit the alternatives like hydrocarbons (4).

GENUINELY CONCERNED ABOUT THE OZONE?

The founders of the EPEE were actively engaged in the fight against the phase-out of CFC’s.

According to internet sources, Hill & Knowlton has in the past assisted in the defense of CFC’s by downplaying its role in the destruction of the ozone layer. Dr. J. Masters, meteorologist, notes how in 1975, when scientists first discovered the ozone hole, Hill & Knowlton was hired by the CFC industry to organise a month long speakers tour around the US for a ozone-skeptic scientist to discredit the discovery as just a ‘number of theories’.[31]

Later, the CFC industry took control of the situation and supported CFC phase-outs, as they saw benefits from the opening market for their replacements, F-gases. Meanwhile, their lobbying continued to slow down the speed of CFC phase-out. For this initial purpose, the ‘Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy’ was founded. This Alliance was later renamed the ‘Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy’.

Kevin Fay (of PR company Alcalde & Fay), then director of the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy, was quoted commenting on the Montreal Protocol as: “it goes much further than anything we think is necessary”.[32] Mr. Fay is still active in the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy as a special counsel.[33]

The companies behind ARAP and EPEE, former producers and promoters of CFCs, should not be given any credit for the global move towards CFC phase-out. Furthermore, the fact that F-gases are non-ozone depleting does not make them ‘environmentally benign’ as F-gas companies often claim, as they are still highly potent greenhouse gases.

1.) The very first impression about the EPEE, given by the website’s flashy introductory film, is its concern with the hole in the ozone layer. However, it fails to say that the alternatives to F-gases are equally non ozone depleting. Moreover, EPEE members like DuPont, Solvay and Daikin have made a fortune out of ozone destroying CFC’s in the past, and were initially opposed to their phase outs.[34]

2.) For many appliances, alternatives to F-gases are not less energy efficient. Hydrocarbons are used on mass scale and are very energy efficiently in home fridges. The energy efficiency of a product tends to depend on the design of the system used. More investments would speed up the development of energy efficient appliances using alternatives to F-gases, like hydrocarbons, ammonia or CO2.

3.) The total greenhouse emissions of an F-gas product depends on how much F-gas ends up in the atmosphere. There is still no agreement on actual leakage rates. The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) has recently published a report that questions the leakage percentages under the Dutch containment model that the draft EU F-gas regulation is based on. According to IEEP, percentages may be allowing far higher emissions than the often quoted 4.8%.[35]

4.) The F-gas lobby constantly refers to the alternatives as ‘flammables’ (especially hydrocarbons), despite the fact that hydrocarbon fridges have proved completely safe. The TABD Refrigerants Group even requested that “the EU Commission and Member States recognise the need for the management and containment of all refrigerants, regardless of the type”[36]. This would mean that CO2 as a refrigerator would have to be contained and recycled after use, despite its negligible global warming potential compared to F-gases. This ‘request’ was clearly meant to reduce the attraction of more cost effective alternatives to F-gases.

STANDARD ABUSE

In a variety of different ways, the F-gas industry is able to achieve political influence, thereby putting competing alternatives at a disadvantage. For example, in the UK, last year a report[37] was published based on documents provided by Calor Gas, a hydrocarbon producer, demonstrating how alternatives to F-gases were treated unfairly in UK standard setting procedures. The F-gas interests were consistently over-represented in numerical terms during technical committees setting standards for air conditioning and refrigeration. According to the report, the UK government largely left the standard setting process to industry, resulting in negligible external oversight. “This then perpetuates the status quo”. Since participation in standard setting working groups is very costly and time consuming, “[...] it is rare for any contribution [...] to come from any source other than well-financed interested parties within industry”, says the report. Calor Gas referred the matter to the UK Office of Fair Trading.

THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL

In 2000, the European Commission started work on a legislative proposal to address F-gases, as part of the EU’s efforts to meet its Kyoto commitments. A special Commission ‘working group on fluorinated gases’ was formed. DG Environment was given prime responsibility for the issue, in close cooperation with DG Enterprise. The participants’ list of this working group is not available on the European Commission website. At CEO’s request, DG Environment responded the list could not be found.[38] As the list shows, there was a clear lack of representation of the non-F-gas refrigerant industry, as well as of public interest NGOs. The F-gas industry, on the contrary, was well represented by both individual companies, the EPEE and the EFCTC. Working group members were principally invited, but could also apply themselves. The uneven composition of the working group may be because of a biased invitation policy. However capacity issues among NGOs and the non-F-gas industry, combined with a lack of awareness of the political process may have also contributed. However, such working groups have an advisory role, and it should be stressed that it is up to the Commission to decide to what extent their advice is reflected in legislative proposals. Jason Anderson of Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe, the only NGO representative on the working group[39], reports that “the fluorocarbon manufacturers, with a vested interest in F-gases, were most vocal, as well as several industry groups with long working relationships with the F-gas industry. Producers of alternatives were represented by only one or two people.”[40] In relation to the content of the proposed regulation, there are two key issues. First, its legal base – Art. 175 (Environment) allows member states to impose stricter rules than EU law demands, whereas art. 95 (Internal Market) does not allow this flexibility. Second whether the focus should be on bans or on containment.
The Commission proposal of August 2003 largely reflected the wishes of the F-gas lobby on these two key issues:

• Article 95 (Internal Market) was decided to be the legal base.

• The focus of the proposal was on containment, using a Dutch model for handling F-gases, rather than on phase outs of F-gases (except for some uses that are emissive by nature, and HFC134a in car air conditioning).

According to Anderson, the working group did not really discuss the legal base. “Industry always advocated the legal base to be art. 95, while NGOs at first focused on getting ambitious legislation – but the resulting weak ambition and art. 95 was the combination industry was aiming for”. The Commission’s choice for art. 95 seems illogical as primary aim of the F-gas regulation is to combat climate change. Peter Horrocks of the European Commission’s Directorate-General Environment described the choice of art. 95 as a “political compromise”.[41] According to a parliamentary advisor of the Greens, other sources in the Environment Directorate suggested that the demand for art. 175 as the legal base was the result of horse-trading with DG Enterprise. Greenpeace reports that former Environment Commissioner Wallström was forced by the rest of the Commission to accept the art. 95 as a legal base; “or else she would get no legislation at all”.[42]

On the bans vs. containment debate, Anderson sums up the result from the working group as: “NGOs wanted containment and phase-outs. Industry wanted containment. So the Commission said ‘everyone agrees on containment, that’s enough,’ even though that was clearly the minor part of the NGO agenda.” He believes that during the period between Spring 2001, the end of the working group discussions, and Summer 2003, the adoption of the Commission proposal, “[the] industry probably did an effective lobby”. Anderson published an extensive critique of the final report of the working group, arguing that the report not always “accurately reflected all the views expressed” and “characterises consensus where no consensus was reached”. He points to a clear lack of data in some cases, where in other cases “reliable data was ignored by opposing industries”. On alternatives, he notes that, “Alternatives have not only been too little considered, the language referring to them is consistently biased in a negative way”.[43]

Once the Commission finalised its proposal, the EU Council of Ministers and the European Parliament took over the process. The first reading at the Parliament ended in March 2004 and brought no fundamental changes to the Commission proposal. However, in October 2004, the Environment Council of Ministers (the Member States) reached a political agreement, which decided to split the proposal into two: a Directive on emissions from mobile air conditioning, and a Regulation which covers the rest. The Council decided on a dual legal base for the Regulation: Internal Market and Environment. In another area, to EPEE’s great relief, the list of possible bans was not extended, despite requests by the governments of Austria and Denmark for such bans.

PARLIAMENT: NEW THREATS, NEW ALLIES AND CLOSED LUNCHES

After the summer break of 2005, Parliament is once again holding the playing cards. Following 2004’s Parliamentary elections, and the enlargement of the EU with ten new Member States, the political landscape has changed and new positions have been taken. To the surprise of many, the new rapporteur on this issue, Christian-Democrat MEP Avril Doyle (Ireland) is proposing art. 175 (Environment) as the single legal base for the F-gas Regulation. She has also tabled an amendment to include an additional ban on F-gases in home refrigerators. The single legal base art. 175 is supported by shadow rapporteur Liberal Chris Davies (UK).

Since the F-gas proposal has been split in two, the Parliament Legal Service has insisted that art. 175 should be the legal base for the F-gas Regulation. Yet, the European Commission’s DG Environment has not changed its position.[44] Doyle’s proposals are a serious threat to EPEE’s ambitions. It has stepped up its lobbying activity directed at MEPs and designed to ensure they refrain from fundamentally amending the proposal. As the EPEE newsletter states, the group aims to “ensure that the achievements made at first reading are not jeopardised during second reading”.[45]

With such positions taken by both the new rapporteur and shadow rapporteur, the EPEE has worked hard to find other allies. Liberal MEP Holger Krahmer (ALDE) was prepared to host a closed lunch lobby meeting for the EPEE on September 14 2005, following the F-gas discussion in the EP’s Environment Committee.

The lunch was attended by a number of MEPs[46] and commission officials from DG Environment and DG Enterprise. Despite Krahmer’s enthusiastic personal slogan ‘To make Europe more Transparent’[47], a Greenpeace representative was at first refused to attend. Only after another MEP intervened, Greenpeace was grudgingly allowed in. Mahi Sideridou (Greenpeace): “Again, the industry gentlemen there were saying ‘no’ to absolutely everything – no to art. 175, no to additional bans. They used the case of the Ozone Depleting Substance Regulation, which is based on art. 175, as a disastrous example of allowing for flexibility in Member States.” Her point of view, on the contrary, is that the right for Member States to take stronger measures to combat ozone depleting substances has delivered vital results in the EU fight against ozone depletion, and has had a global market knock-on effect. The fact that MEPs attending the EPEE lobby lunch were served this specific example, could not contrast more with EPEE’s self created pro ozone protection image.

LOBBYISTS FILLING THE INFORMATION VOID?

Members of the European Parliament often complain about the lack of time and resources to collect the information necessary to make good judgements about highly technical issues. Quoted recently in the ‘European Voice’, MEP Hartmut Nassauer, points out that at EU level, in contrast to the national level, “there is no government or administrative body linked to the European Parliament so when there is an important directive such as the REACH chemicals legislation, it is important that there are lobbyists who have relevant knowledge”. MEP Chris Davies, shadow rapporteur on the F-gas regulation, confirms that much of the information that comes to him is provided by lobbyists. In his view, the producers of alternatives to F-gases have not been lobbying nearly as strongly. However, the Parliament Environment Committee has rightly not been influenced by this imbalance of information. In its last vote, demands for additional bans were accepted, as well as for a single legal base Art. 175.

THE GRAND FINALE

On 11 October 2005, members of the Parliament’s Environment Committee proved unconvinced by persistent industry lobbying against F-gas phase-outs. Support was given to phase-outs in domestic refrigeration (four years after the entry into force), in commercial refrigeration (by 2010), in air conditioning (by 2010), in all foams (by 2009), aerosols (by 2006), as well as in trace gases (by 2006). There is a proposal to ban SF6 – the most potent of all F-gases – in all but one appliance (by 2008). Moreover, the Committee chose for a single legal base ‘Environment’ (art. 175), which would allow Denmark and Austria to keep their existing bans and allow other countries to do the same in the future.[48] Before the vote, rapporteur Doyle dismissed complaints that a single legal base art. 175 would disturb the internal market. “With respect, industry’s protests are nonsense. We employ a legal opinion and we should listen to our legal opinion”, she said.[49] The Parliament Committee also agreed to support fiscal incentives for producers of alternatives. In an internal note, Hill & Knowlton consultant Mary. B. Walsh reports to the EPEE members that “[…] the overall result is not good for EPEE with the Committee having accepted a single environmental legal base as well as a the full range of use bans affecting the Various RAC appliances as proposed”. And: “This means we have our work cut out for us to get the wider Membership of the parliament to move against the position as adopted by the environment committee.” [50]

DG ENTERPRISE LAST MINUTE ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE F-GAS REGULATION?

In its final stages, the F-gas Regulation has become a target of the “better regulation” campaign of Commissioners Verheugen (DG Enterprise) and Barroso (President). This means that the F-gas directive has been put on the list of legislative proposals, published 27 September 2005, for which a reassessment on the economic impact on business is required. Given the advanced stage that the F-gas Regulation has reached in terms of a decision point, even DG Environment is left wondering what motivation has included it in this list.[51]

Ironically, the double No vote to the EU Constitution in France and the Netherlands, is being used in support of this deregulation drive. It is claimed that the populations in both countries would have rejected the Constitution foremost because they want ‘less Brussels bureaucracy’. Despite clear messages that many people, instead, want a green and social Europe, Barroso and Verheugen presented a list of ‘absurd’ laws to be slashed, and reassessment demands for other regulatory initiatives that might bring additional costs to industry.

Corporate Europe Observatory filed an ‘access to information’ request to DG Enterprise, asking access to all communication and meetings between Commissioner Verheugen and DG Enterprise on the one hand, and business groups on the other, in the context of the establishment of this ‘better regulation’ list. The European Commission replied that no such communication or meetings had taken place.[52] After some weeks of uncertainty, it is now clear that the legislative process of the F-gas regulation will not be delayed because of the economic assessment.[53]

In the days before the decisive European Parliament vote, Hill & Knowlton is co-ordinating the EPEE fight back. An internal EPEE document describes in detail which lobbying action is to be taken by which EPEE representatives, towards MEPs, the Commission and the Member States.[54] Mary Walsh of Hill & Knowlton writes:

“[we] need to do all in our power to ensure the negative amendment don’t get a majority of 367” The leaked document gives a unique insight into the multi-faceted lobbying offensive orchestrated by Hill & Knowlton on behalf of its corporate clients.[55]

LEEKED EPEE STRATEGY

• Towards the ‘Trialogue’ meeting between the European Commission, Parliament and Council, Hill & Knowlton will compile a list with “input against each ban”, that will the basis of all lobbying by EPEE members. Hill & Knowlton will set up meetings with ‘critical MEPs’ to “ to influence the voting list across the political group and nation positions.”

• In the Environment Committee, the aim is “finding friends who can put doubt on results on critical bans and legal base amendments and carry the message to wider parliament”[56] Chairman Florenz (EPP, Germany) will be targeted specifically by CEFIC.

• The Parliament Industry Committee on the other hand, is labelled as a ‘natural ally’, and key players from this Committee are to be mobilised to “advocate to wider membership”.

• Also&in the Internal Market and Legal Affairs Committees, Trade Committee and EUAUS delegation, MEPs are selected to be contacted[57].

• There is still consideration to try and “get a political group or group of MEPs to table any plenary amendments.” To influence the Commission, Hill Knowlton will contact the Cabinets of Dimas (Environment) and Barroso (President) to “ensure steady on legal base”.

• ‘NC’ (CEO: most likely referring to Nick Campbell, of Atofina Total, EFCTC, and CEFIC) will talk more to DG Environment, and there is “ongoing contact with DG Enterprise”.

• As for the Member States, the EPEE says: “Calm panic ahead of COREPER (CEO: Permanent Representatives Committee) meeting. Ensure favourable national governments more active in briefing”. The ‘favourable’ national governments will be “pushed” to “brief national MEPs ahead of plenary vote to ensure fully informed and well thought out vote”.

•Notably, the last minute strategy of EPEE should include an “overarching consideration to push SMEs argumentations as part of EPEE approach – important these and SMS member are brought to the fore in the lobbying”; despite the nearly complete absence of SMEs in EPEE membership [.]

• The broad message will “call into doubt the Committee approach as a whole” (CEO: Committee must mean the EP Environment Committee), argumentation on each ban will be developed, and the legal base argumentation will be “reworked to short crisp statement”. Daikin suggests an emphasis that varying positions of Member States will “slow down the development of ecologically sound alternatives”.[58] The fact that the F-gas lobby succeeded in effectively gaining control of the initial phases of EU decision-making is a stark and concerning example of policy capture by vested interests. The lack of clear rules for the establishment of European Commission working groups and advisory committees has contributed to this situation. Balanced representation of all stakeholders should be ensured, as well as safeguards against policy capture. Improving transparency is no less crucial. As it is now, democratic scrutiny of the Commission’s decision-making processes is impossible.

These two steps, rules for a fair political process and transparency, are imperative in order give decision-makers and the public a real chance to judge to what extent the Commission fulfils its role ofsmaking proposals in the common European interest.sMore generally, EU decision-making around the regulation of F-gases has suffered due to the hidden nature of lobbying activities. Mandatory registration and disclosure of lobbying expenditure – as sproposed by the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation (ALTER-EU) – would reveal who is lobbying whom, on what issue and with what budgets.[59]

In the case of F-gases, this would have given MEPs some insight into the financial resources pushing competing technical viewpoints. It would also clarify the financial interests and the role of PR/PA firms in lobbying platforms like the EPEE. And it would have revealed just how much money the F-gas producers have invested in preventing a phase-out of their climate-destroying products, compared to the far smaller amounts at the disposal of pro-environment lobbyists as well as the producers of less harmful refrigerating gases. The annual turnover of corporate lobbying in Brussels is estimated to be between 750 million euro and one billion euro.[60] This far outweighs the budgets available to public interest NGOs, trade unions, small businesses and others trying to prevent commercial interests from capturing and dominating the EU decision-making.

CSR CLAIMS VERSUS LOBBYING STRATEGIES

The lobbying battle around the EU’s F-gas regulation is an example of industry being divided.

On the one side major F-gas producers teamed up to prevent any phase-outs. They had the most to loose. On the other side, only a few of the producers of alternative refrigerants were actively involved. Users of F-gases are often able to switch, but are looking at economic benefits for switching to balance the costs.

Those corporations wanting to prevent a phase-out of their products and a fast transition to environmentally friendly alternatives for refrigerating gases, invested far more resources in a lobbying effort to shape EU regulations in their interest. Indeed for a while, it looked as though they would be successful. The coming weeks will show whether these companies will get away with this attempt to subvert the EU’s decision-making process. Regardless of the outcome, however, the companies involved should be held accountable to the role they have played in this lobbying offensive.

Some EPEE members are corporations with a carefully nurtured green image. Solvay and Dupont continuously claim to be committed to ‘corporate social responsibility’ (CSR). Visitors to the Solvay websites, will find a site dedicated to Sustainable Development[61], and can read about how the company is a “responsible citizen that pays taxes, contributes added value and sustainability to the community and shares its expertise and skills”.[62] They will not, however, find any mention of the company’s engagement in the EPEE and the attempt to prevent a phase-out of F-gases. Dupont is even more eager to portray itself as a frontrunner in ‘corporate social responsibility’ and has for instance joined the Global Compact, the UN’s voluntary initiative “to promote good corporate citizenship”.[63]

The financial and other support of these companies for the EPEE’s lobbying to weaken the EU’s F-gas regulation is a clear case of a mismatch between CSR claims and lobbying strategies. Lobbying transparency obligations would help increase the public scrutiny of the CSR images designed by these corporations and disencourage inconsistent lobbying.

SUMMARY

Fluorinated gases (F-gases, HFCs) were pushed onto the market as replacements for CFCs, which caused ozone depletion and were in the process of being banned. However, F-gases are highly potent greenhouse gases. F-gases are, and increasingly will be, in most cases replaceable by environmentally friendly alternatives like hydrocarbons. [water & CO2]. ]But multinationals like DuPont and Honeywell are determined not to give up their globally expanding F-gas business. Their lobby groups in Washington, the Air conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) and the ‘Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy’ (ARAP) effectively used the Trans Atlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) as a platform to oppose F-gas bans by individual EU member states, and to influence the currently debated F-gas Regulation from the very start of the drafting process.

To make it look like a genuine ‘European’ lobby with an environmental focus, ARI founded the ‘European Partnership for Energy and the Environment’ (EPEE). Public Affairs company Hill & Knowlton was hired to run the EPEE lobbying campaign. The EPEE is the European version of the ARAP. The ARAP was founded to defend the interests of CFC producers like DuPont, that at first strongly opposed the ban of CFCs. Now, the ARAP and EPEE alike, fiercely promote F-gases for their non-ozone depleting qualities, while downplaying their global warming impact. The original European Commission proposal reflected the privileged access that the F-gas industry had to the Commission before the drafting process started, and industry’s dominating voice within the Commission’s working group on fluorinated gases. Producers of alternatives to F-gases and environmental NGOs were highly under-represented. The F-gas Regulation is now in the final phase of the second reading at the European Parliament. The EPEE is targeting Members of European Parliament (MEPs), but also the Commission and the Member States, in an ultimate attempt to prevent important changes that would allow for more bans on F-gases and have been proposed by the Environment Committee of the Parliament. These changes threaten much of the F-gas industry’s earlier lobbying achievements. Internal EPEE documents reveal the exact details of the lobbying strategy laid out by Hill & Knowlton. At EU level, there is a great need for transparency rules for lobbying in order to facilitate public scrutiny over important decision-making processes. At this moment, such transparency is virtually nonexistent.

NOTES:

1.) For EUA15, that is cutting greenhouse gases to 8% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012.

2.) A commonly used refrigerant for example, HFC134-a, contributes 1,300 times more to global warming than CO2 and stays in the atmosphere for over 14 years. Other HFCs reach levels of 6,000 to 10,000 GWP, while SF6 has a GWP of nearly 24,000! High Global Warming Potential Gases, information sheet of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

3.) Briefing on the climate threat posed by F-gases, MIPIGGS, September 2004.

4) . European Climate Change Programme, Report– June 2001

5.) Examples are ammonia, CO2 and hydrocarbons. Propane, a hydrocarbon, for example has a direct GWP of less than 3 compared with HFCA134a 13,000 (over 100 years) and an atmospheric lifetime of months as opposed to 15 years.

8.) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on certain fluorinated greenhouse gases, 2003/1089 (COM), European Commission, 11 August 2003.

9.) Art. 95, Internal Market, instead of art. 175, Environment.

11.) Briefing on the climate threat posed by F-gases, MIPIGGS, September 2004.

12.) The age of hydrocarbon refrigerants has arrived, Idaho Observer, April 2002.

13.) “It appears that the European Parliament is willing to enact discriminatory non-tariff trade barriers to US products under the guise of environmental protection”, Dave Lewis quoted in Alliance Calls on US Government to Oppose European HFC Equipment Ban, ARAP press release, March 2004.

14.) Some European associations like AREA (an association representing refrigeration and air conditioning installers) declare to be EPEE member, although they are not on the EPEE membership list.

16.) www.epeeglobal.org

17.) The ARI is not only a ‘founding member’ of EPEE, but also EPEE newsletters can be found on the ARI website, as well as dates of EPEE meetings in Brussels. The ARI members are encouraged to become member of EPEE.

18.) The ARAP board of directors includes people from DuPont, Honeywell, Lennox, Carrier, Copeland, Maytag, INEOS, Solvay, York International, General Electric and ATOFINA.

19.) Many example can be found on the website of Source Watch

20.) See also TABD in Troubled Water, CEO Briefing, October 2001.

21.) Council Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 of 15 December 1994 on substances that deplete the ozone layer.

25.) This location is also home to PR/PA company Burson Marsteller, see also House of Mirrors; Burson-Marsteller Brussels lobbying for the bromine industry, Corporate Europe Observatory, January 2005.

26.) If you look at it from the Hill Knowlton perspective, running EPEE brings the additional benefit of having three extra lobbyists (Philipp Bruchert, Marc Limon, Mary B. Walsh) accredited at the European Parliament on top of the five currently registered as Hill Knowlton lobbyists.

27.) See the overview of clients on the Hill Knowlton website.

28.) David Stirpe of Alcalde Fay serves as the Executive Director of the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy. Kevin Fay is ‘special&counsel’ to the ARAP, and ran the former ‘Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy’.

29.) EPEE submission to the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological

Advice (SBSTA) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, 27 February 2002.

30.) http://www.ari.org/consumer/speeches/2003/0503suttonoslo.html

32.) The+Hole+in+the+Sky, John Gribbin, Bantam Books, New York, 1988.

33.) About Us, ARAP website, checked October 2005.

34.) The phase out of CFCs was never a major problem to these companies, even a benefit. Investments in more specialised, higher cost HCFCs had already been made, and the Montreal Protocol forced consumers into those substitutes.

35.) Is STEK as good as reported? Institute for European Environmental Policy, June 2005.

36.) Transatlantic Business Dialogue concerned about trade barriers, May 2001.

37.) The capture of standards by the F-gas industry, Chris Rose for MIPIGGS, 2002.

38.) CEO finally obtained the working group participants list from CAN Europe. Parliament staff confirms that the Parliament is not informed in a structural manner of the composition or deliberations of such Commission working groups, that have the opportunity to greatly influence new proposals.

39.) Then called Climate Network Europe, CNE.

40.) Telephone conversation with Jason Anderson, formerly working for CAN (then CNE).

industry-leading technology – Ozone friendly refrigerant R744 (CO2)

“We should no longer accept the counsel of those who tell us that we must fill our world with poisonous chemicals; we should look about and see what other course is open to us.”Rachel Carson, ‘Silent Spring’, 1962. She was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Jimmy Carter.

The Minister for Health at the time [Feb. 2006] )

$cience According To

The AMA ↓

As Dr. Frederick Exner noted: “If American Industry had to stoppolluting our air, water, and our countryside with fluoride fumes and fall-out, and to dispose of its fluoridewastes without creating a public hazard,it would cost, not mere millions, but countless billions of dollars.

— FOLLOW THE MONEY —

We must also consider the concept of a control group
in establishing cause and effect.
Without a control group, theeffect of fluoride gases are confused with the effect offluoridated water or toothpaste. This camouflage has servedthe interests of powerful corporations since 1945.

Fluorine constitutes 0.065 per cent of the elements of the

earth’s crust and is a significant component of the totalbiogeochemical cycle in which life has evolved. Mankind hasalways been exposed to fluoride in the environment; andfluoride has always been a trace constituent of our diet anda component of our body fluids, tissues and skeleton.

Indeed, the ubiquitous occurrence of fluoride in nature

means that it would be virtually impossible to prepare adiet entirely free of fluoride.

But, until the start of the industrial revolution, most of

the fluoride in the environment was safely ‘locked-up’ inrocks, coal and clays, and only relatively small amountswere released either as a result of volcanic activity (HFcan be detected in volcanic gases), coal burning, or theslow leaching of fluoride into some waters.

Over the past 50 years, a variety of industries have

released into the atmosphere more than25,000,000 tons of fluoride gases and particulates.

Dentists will argue, correctly, that mankind has always been

exposed to fluoride in the environment. We have also beenexposed to trace amounts of arsenic, lead, cadmium, andbackground radiation. The human body can handle certainlevels of potentially harmful substances, there’s no doubtabout that. But, remember, there are ‘threshold levels’above which the poison begins to harm the body or the way itfunctions. Since each one of us is metabolically unique,some people are more sensitive to fluoride than others.Today, a significant proportion of the fluoride that entersthe human body is from modern man-made sources, and all theindications are that you and your family are now being over-exposed to what scientists in the Manhattan Project named –the Devil’s Element.

You will have heard of fluoride. It’s the miracle ingredient

in your toothpaste, and the chemical they put in publicwater supplies to prevent cavities in teeth.

If health authorities were to set air pollution standards

for hydrogen fluoride which were harmless, then certain keyindustries in our technologically-oriented society wouldalmost grind to a halt.

This dilemma led to the most bizarre conspiracy of modern

times in which captains of industry and national securityagencies combined to ruthlessly suppress evidence of thedangers of hydrogen fluoride air pollution; and, cynicallyused a healing profession – dentistry – to promote anapparently beneficial image for fluoride.

The result is that we live in an increasingly ‘fluoridated’

world. The fluoride in water and toothpaste is potentiallyharmful; the hydrogen fluoride in contaminated air far moreso. Each year, tens of thousands of tons of hydrogenfluoride create an environmental hazard more threateningthan global warming or depletion of the ozone layer; andhydrogen fluoride, which can be 1,000 times more harmfulthan sulphur dioxide, is often a key, but rarely mentionedcomponent of ‘acid rain’.

Few people living in the developed countries of the world

can escape exposure to hydrogen fluoride (HF). Workers inmore than 60 occupations are now breathing HF-contaminatedair, and anyone living in the vicinity of the fluoride-polluting industries is also at risk.

The World Health Organization has estimated that many

millions of people live in areas with air pollution problemssevere enough to cause tens of thousands of premature deathseach year and leave many more chronically ill and disabled.

During this century three major air pollution disasters

emphasized the link between contaminated air, disaster anddeath. These occurred in the Meuse Valley, Belgium, in 1930;Donora, Pennsylvania in 1948, and London in 1952. The worstbegan in London on Thursday, 4th December, and lasted threedays. During this period, 4,000 people in London died fromheart and lung disease.Hydrogen fluoride was the chiefkiller in all three disasters.

Hydrogen fluoride at a concentration of just 0.1 parts per

billion in air can damage sensitive vegetation; at aconcentration of 1 part per billion it can devastatevineyards and orchards. Of all air pollutants which affectfarm animals, hydrogen fluoride has caused the most severeand widespread damage. Yet health authorities insist thatlow-level long-term exposure to HF cannot harm human health!

If there is scientifically acceptable evidence to supportthese claims about the hazards of HF, how on earth haveauthorities managed to deceive people for so long? Why do wehear so much about sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides andcarbon monoxide, and so little about hydrogen fluoride?

Because most people have been ‘brain-washed’ into believingthat ‘fluoride’ is good for them. After all, it’s put intowater and toothpaste to prevent tooth decay. If you candrink water containing 1 part per million fluoride, and usetoothpaste containing 1,000 parts per million fluoride, thenhow could fluoride in air at a level of parts per billion beharmful?

In other words, health authorities pretend that fluoride inthe air is the same as fluoride in drinking water andtoothpaste. They even present their measurements of hydrogenfluoride in air as – fluoride. When describing waterfluoridation, the same tactic is used … sodium fluorideand fluosilicic acid are described as “natural,” avoidingthe fact that in areas with “natural” fluoridation, thecompounds involved are not these toxic wastes of industry,but a much less toxic compound of fluoride and calcium.

In the 1930’s scientists in Britain, Europe and the United

States knew that low levels of HF were harmful. Furthermore,they had identified a visible symptom of chronic HFpoisoning.

Children who grew up near industries with fluoride-pollutionproblems could develop ‘mottled’ teeth; so too could cattleand sheep in the vicinity. The relationship between HF airpollution and ‘mottled’ teeth was an obvious threat to theCaptains of Industry. They might argue whether it wassulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides or hydrogen fluoride thatwas responsible for damage to crops and livestock, but noother air pollutants caused mottled teeth.

In 1930 there were plenty of ‘mottled’ teeth amongstchildren in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, headquarters of theAluminium Company of America, Alcoa. The head chemist ofAlcoa, H.V. Churchill, was given the job of ‘explaining’ the‘mottled’ teeth in a way that would deflect attention awayfrom Alcoa’s fluoride air pollution problems.

Tooth decay is caused by bacteria – single-celled organisms,which, like all cells – both enamel and vegetable – areextremely sensitive to fluoride which, above certainconcentrations, is a potent poison.

The most common bacterium implicated in the cause of caries is Streptococcus mutans. Levels of fluoride
above 20 partsper million are lethal to S. mutans;
levels as low as 0.19ppm fluoride can interfere with certain
essential metabolic enzymes in the bacterium; and
concentrations of fluoride between 4 and 20 ppm can
cause S. mutans to – mutate. In other words, fluoride
is an anti-microbial agent of great potency.

The development of a cavity in a tooth proceeds in thefollowing manner. S. mutans (or other cariogenic bacteria)must first gain attachment to the tooth surface. Onceattached, and given a suitable food supply, the bacteriathrive and multiply, producing colonies known as dentalplaque. Within the plaque, millions of microbes are consumingcarbohydrates and excreting dilute acids as waste products.
These acids begin to eat away – demineralize – the surface layers of the tooth enamel. As a result, the enamel is broken down into its component parts, which include,calcium, phosphate, carbonate and trace amounts of fluoride(which was incorporated into the enamel as it developed).

Gradually, the fluoride level in the plaque fluid builds up.When it reaches 0.19 ppm the metabolism of the bacteriaslows down – less food is consumed and fewer acid wastesproduced. As the level rises above 4 ppm fluoride, the‘mutation rate’ of the bacteria increases dramatically.Finally, as the fluoride concentrations in the plaque risesto lethal levels, the bacteria die. And, there may even besome re-mineralization of the enamel.

Wonderful! A cavity has been prevented! But all this hastaken place on the surface of the [tooth] body, not inside it.

Of course fluoride is not the only element that can preventdecay topically. Any potentially toxic element which canbecome incorporated in tooth enamel, such as the bone-seeking elements – radium, uranium, cadmium, lead andstrontium-90, will kill cariogenic bacteria as they arereleased from enamel as a consequence of the de-mineralizingeffect of the microbes’ acid wastes.

Trace amounts of fluoride are present in bone mineral –which is very similar to the mineral in tooth enamel.However, there is a crucial difference between bone andenamel. Once fully formed, tooth enamel is static – itdoesn’t undergo metabolic changes. Bone, on the other hand,is constantly being remodelled. This involves ‘old’ bonebeing resorbed and ‘new’ bone laid down. Cells calledosteocytes and osteoclasts dissolve the ‘old’ bone andosteoblasts help form ‘new’ bone.

All bone contains some fluoride, and as old bone isdissolved it is released into the vicinity of the resorbingcells, and evolution has ensured that the bone cells canwithstand very low levels of fluoride.

But, just as the cariogenic bacteria can be harmed by theexcessive levels of fluoride, so too can bone cells and bonemarrow cells – which include the progenitors of immunesystem cells.

The events described above explain the symptoms associatedwith both dental and skeletal fluorosis; unfortunately theyalso raise the spectre of bone cancer and leukemia.

As Dr. Frederick Exner noted: “If American Industry had tostop polluting our air, water, and our countryside withfluoride fumes and fall-out, and to dispose of its fluoridewastes without creating a public hazard, it would cost, notmere millions, but countless billions of dollars. andtherein lies the explanation for the utterly relentlessdrive to fluoridate our water supplies by any means, fair orfoul, and many other puzzling aspects of the drive tofluoridate.”

Because of the dental profession’s infatuation with fluoride,
tens of millions of people around the world have ‘mottled’
teeth caused by fluoridated drinking water, fluoridated dental
health products, or fluoride air pollution. The evidence is inescapable.

Although cosmetic dentistry can cover up the visible damageto teeth, it is costly and highly profitable for dentists.The dental profession’s longtime promotion of fluoride hascreated a need for cosmetic dentistry – yet for years,dentists argued that by pushing fluoride they would beputting themselves out of business!

Well, guess what … the litigation has now begun.

And once a jury accepts that fluoride can harm developingteeth, the next obvious question will be: If fluoride candamage tooth cells, what other cells and tissues in thehuman body are being harmed?

The flood-gates will open. Over the next decade it isconceivable that in North America, Britain and Australia, atleast fifteen million people will be seeking damages for‘mottled’ teeth – from toothpaste manufacturers, dentists,and local authorities who permitted fluoridation. A lot ofmoney will be involved; even at $10,000 per person, a prettymodest sum these days, we are talking about $150 BILLION.

Are you beginning to get the picture? The dental profession,federal and state health authorities, and certain importantindustries, CANNOT admit, after 50 years, that fluoride hasbeen damaging human health; the consequences areunthinkable.

REFERENCES:

Diesendorf, M., et. al., New evidence on fluoridation,Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health,21(2):187-190, May 1997.

Colgate pays out for teeth ruined by fluoride, by LindaJackson, The Sunday Telegraph, November 24, 1996.China takes a deep breath, U.S. News & World Report,September 9, 1996, page 36.

Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, Subcommittee on HealthEffects of Ingested Fluoride, Committee on Toxicology, Boardon Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Commission on LifeSciences, National Research Council, August 1993.

Zimmerman, Norman, Ph.D., J.D., Senior Toxicologist, ToxicSubstance Control Commission (Michigan), The Need for theDetermination of the Extent of Total Fluoride Exposure inCommunity Assessment of the Value of Water Fluoridation, May1981.

The Fluoride Content of Some Foods and Beverages, Journal ofFood Science 31:941,1966.

Endemic Fluorosis, Medicine 42:229, 1963.

The problem of providing optimum fluoride intake forprevention of dental caries, Food and nutrition Board,Division of Biology and Agriculture, National Academy ofSciences, National Research Council, Pub. #294, November1953.

McClure, Frank J., Ingestion of fluoride and dental caries –-quantitative relations based on food and water requirementsof children 1 to 12 years old, American Journal Diseases ofChildren, 66:362, 1943.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it”- Upton Sinclair -

See also on this web site:↓

❝ A handful of dentists in the various States have advised Health Ministers that fluoridation is universally safe. But dentists’ expertise is limited to areas of the mouth, specifically the teeth and gums; they know nothing of what can happen to fluoride in other parts of the body, and most of them couldn’t care less…

Anyone who looks at the original evidence would be appalled, because it is shoddy, superficial and inadequate. However, dentists have said fluoridation is safe and they can’t go back on that; too many of them would be left with egg on their faces. Additionally, there is the growing fear of litigation… Politicians don’t like having to repeal laws they themselves introduced; and Professors of Dentistry don’t fancy losing their reputations!” Dr. Geoffrey E. Smith. 1983

About Dr. Smith

Dr Geoffrey Ernest Smith, L.D.S., R.C.S. (Eng.)

Dental Surgeon, (retired)

Curriculum Vitae:

1 Born: 1 November 1932, Married, 5 children, 4 grandchildren.

2 Educated: Lawrence House School, St. Annes on Sea, Lancashire.

Rossall School, Fleetwood, Lancashire. University of Manchester,

Turner Dental School.

3 1956: Qualified L.D.S., R.C.S. Royal College of Surgeons. (England).

4 1957-59 Post-Graduate Studies. Queens University, Belfast.

5 1959-60 Travelling Fellowship, UK Medical Research Council;

WHO Regional Office, Brazzaville. Based University of Ibaden W. Nigeria.

Field work: Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Gambia and Liberia.

6 1961-68 General Dental Practice, London and Dublin.

7 1965-66 Consultant, Aspro-Nicholas, Ireland, Ltd., Dublin.

8 1969-71 Consultant, Glaxo Group Ltd., London.

9 1972-74 Consultant, PIA Ltd., Lopex Group, London, New York.

10 1974-76 Consultant, Nicholas International, Slough & Melbourne.

11 1976-79 General Dental Practice and School Dentistry, Melbourne.

12 1979-80 Hospital Dentist, Proserpine, North Queensland.

13 1987-88 Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Melbourne.

14 1980 – Consultant, Environmental and Public Health.

SOME RELEVANT PAPERS IN THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE

1 NZ Med.J. 1983;96, 1067-1068.

2 Persp. Biol.Med. 1986 29, 560-

3 New Scientist 1983;5 May 286-287

4 Trends.Pharm.Sci.1986, 7, 10

5 Fluoride, 1983, Editorial, Autumn.

6 Sci.Tot.Environ. 1987, 63, 1-11.

7 Aust.Dent.J. 1984, 29, 199-200.

8 Endeavour, 1987, 11, 16-

9 J.R.Coll Gen.Pract.1984, 34, 350-351.

10 Sci.Prog.(Oxf.), 1987, 71, 23

11 Xenobiotica, 1985, 15, 177-186.

12 The Scientist, 1987, 1, 24.

13 Sci.Prog.(Oxf.), 1985, 69, 429-442.

14 Sci.Tot.Env., 1988, 68, 79-86.

15 Sci.Tot.Env. 1985, 43, 41-61.

16 NZ Med.J. 1985, 90, 556-557.

17 NZ Med.J. 1985, 98, 454-455.

18 Pers.Biol.Med. 1988, 31, 440-45

19 NZ Med.J. 1988, 100, 669-670.

20 Sci.Tot.Env., 1988, 76, 167-

21 New Scientist, 1985, 1467-, 50-51.

22 NZ Med.J. 1988, 101, 802.

23 NZ Med.l. 1985, 30, 232-233.

24 Med.Hypoth., 1986, 19, 139-

25 Med.J.Aust., 1985, 143, 283-286.

26 Mutat.Res., 1990, 241, 339-

27 Med.J.Aust., 1986, 144, 152.

28 Fusso Kenkyo, 1990, 11, 38-48

29 Lawyer, 1986, 4(3), 6. (Japanese)

30 Fluoride, 1986, 19, 105-107.

31 Probe, 1989, 31, 1-2.

32 Nature 1986; 323, 198.

22 NZ Med.J. 1988, 101, 802.

23 NZ Med.l. 1985, 30, 232-233.

24 Med.Hypoth., 1986, 19, 139-

25 Med.J.Aust., 1985, 143, 283-286.

26 Mutat.Res., 1990, 241, 339-

27 Med.J.Aust., 1986, 144, 152.

28 Fusso Kenkyo, 1990, 11, 38-48

29 Lawyer, 1986, 4(3), 6. (Japanese)

30 Fluoride, 1986, 19, 105-107.

31 Probe, 1989, 31, 1-2.

32 Nature 1986; 323, 198.

33 Aust. Dent.J., 1985, 30, 232-233

The Control of Dental Caries:

Can Vaccines Prevent Cavities?

G. E. Smith

Abstract:

Essentially, responsibility for developing and implementing measures designed to control dental caries should rest with the dental profession. Many of the most effective ways of controlling caries, however, involve the use of fluoride. Either systemically via fluoridated water and tablets or, topically, with fluoride-containing toothpaste and mouthrinses. Scientists in many disciplines are aware that fluorides can, in certain circumstances, endanger the environment. There is some evidence that fluoride contamination of the total environment has increased in recent years. The usefulness of fluoride as a caries preventive does not mean that unnecessary exposure to the element should be tolerated. It is conceivable that fluoride is approaching the limits of its effectiveness as a caries preventive. With this possibility in mind, recent research directed toward the development of safe, effective anti-tooth decay vaccines has been reviewed.

Editor’s note:

‘The Secret War’ was originally prepared as a personal submission to

He made two submissions

— A Short Good Read —

❝ A handful of dentists in the various States have advised Health Ministers that fluoridation is universally safe. But dentists’ expertise is limited to areas of the mouth, specifically the teeth and gums; they know nothing of what can happen to fluoride in other parts of the body, and most of them couldn’t care less…

Anyone who looks at the original evidence would be appalled, because it is shoddy, superficial and inadequate. However, dentists have said fluoridation is safe and they can’t go back on that; too many of them would be left with egg on their faces. Additionally, there is the growing fear of litigation… Politicians don’t like having to repeal laws they themselves introduced; and Professors of Dentistry don’t fancy losing their reputations!” Dr. Geoffrey E. Smith. 1983

1 Born: 1 November 1932, Married, 5 children, 4 grandchildren.

2 Educated: Lawrence House School, St. Annes on Sea, Lancashire.

Rossall School, Fleetwood, Lancashire. University of Manchester,

Turner Dental School.

3 1956: Qualified L.D.S., R.C.S. Royal College of Surgeons. (England).

4 1957-59 Post-Graduate Studies. Queens University, Belfast.

5 1959-60 Travelling Fellowship, UK Medical Research Council;

WHO Regional Office, Brazzaville. Based University of Ibaden W. Nigeria.

Field work: Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Gambia and Liberia.

6 1961-68 General Dental Practice, London and Dublin.

7 1965-66 Consultant, Aspro-Nicholas, Ireland, Ltd., Dublin.

8 1969-71 Consultant, Glaxo Group Ltd., London.

9 1972-74 Consultant, PIA Ltd., Lopex Group, London, New York.

10 1974-76 Consultant, Nicholas International, Slough & Melbourne.

11 1976-79 General Dental Practice and School Dentistry, Melbourne.

12 1979-80 Hospital Dentist, Proserpine, North Queensland.

13 1987-88 Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Melbourne.

14 1980 – Consultant, Environmental and Public Health.

SOME RELEVANT PAPERS IN THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE

1 NZ Med.J. 1983;96, 1067-1068.

2 Persp. Biol.Med. 1986 29, 560-

3 New Scientist 1983;5 May 286-287

4 Trends.Pharm.Sci.1986, 7, 10

5 Fluoride, 1983, Editorial, Autumn.

6 Sci.Tot.Environ. 1987, 63, 1-11.

7 Aust.Dent.J. 1984, 29, 199-200.

8 Endeavour, 1987, 11, 16-

9 J.R.Coll Gen.Pract.1984, 34, 350-351.

10 Sci.Prog.(Oxf.), 1987, 71, 23

11 Xenobiotica, 1985, 15, 177-186.

12 The Scientist, 1987, 1, 24.

13 Sci.Prog.(Oxf.), 1985, 69, 429-442.

14 Sci.Tot.Env., 1988, 68, 79-86.

15 Sci.Tot.Env. 1985, 43, 41-61.

16 NZ Med.J. 1985, 90, 556-557.

17 NZ Med.J. 1985, 98, 454-455.

18 Pers.Biol.Med. 1988, 31, 440-45

19 NZ Med.J. 1988, 100, 669-670.

20 Sci.Tot.Env., 1988, 76, 167-

21 New Scientist, 1985, 1467-, 50-51.

22 NZ Med.J. 1988, 101, 802.

23 NZ Med.l. 1985, 30, 232-233.

24 Med.Hypoth., 1986, 19, 139-

25 Med.J.Aust., 1985, 143, 283-286.

26 Mutat.Res., 1990, 241, 339-

27 Med.J.Aust., 1986, 144, 152.

28 Fusso Kenkyo, 1990, 11, 38-48

29 Lawyer, 1986, 4(3), 6. (Japanese)

30 Fluoride, 1986, 19, 105-107.

31 Probe, 1989, 31, 1-2.

32 Nature 1986; 323, 198.

22 NZ Med.J. 1988, 101, 802.

23 NZ Med.l. 1985, 30, 232-233.

24 Med.Hypoth., 1986, 19, 139-

25 Med.J.Aust., 1985, 143, 283-286.

26 Mutat.Res., 1990, 241, 339-

27 Med.J.Aust., 1986, 144, 152.

28 Fusso Kenkyo, 1990, 11, 38-48

29 Lawyer, 1986, 4(3), 6. (Japanese)

30 Fluoride, 1986, 19, 105-107.

31 Probe, 1989, 31, 1-2.

32 Nature 1986; 323, 198.

33 Aust. Dent.J., 1985, 30, 232-233

Extract from

THE CONTROL OF DENTAL CARIES:
CAN VACCINES PREVENT CAVITIES?

by G.E. SMITH

Abstract:

Essentially, responsibility for developing and implementing measures designed to control dental caries should rest with the dental profession. Many of the most effective ways of controlling caries, however, involve the use of fluoride. Either systemically via fluoridated water and tablets or, topically, with fluoride-containing toothpaste and mouth rinses. Scientists in many disciplines are aware that fluorides can, in certain circumstances, endanger the environment. There is some evidence that fluoride contamination of the total environment has increased in recent years. The usefulness of fluoride as a caries preventive does not mean that unnecessary exposure to the element should be tolerated. It is conceivable that fluoride is approaching the limits of its effectiveness as a caries preventive. With this possibility in mind, recent research directed toward the development of safe, effective anti-tooth decay vaccines has been reviewed.